Trade Union Reform (Civil Service)
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Maude
It is lovely to see the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) taking time off from her pressing duties of holding the Labour party’s election campaign together. It is good to have her here. I thank her for her gracious support for most of what we do. It is important to stress that much of what we have done on civil service reform has commanded widespread support across the political spectrum. I am grateful to her and her predecessors for the constructive way in which they have done that—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) makes a comment that is rather less graceful than his colleague.
Mr Maude
It is very hard to tell.
Let me deal head on with the hon. Lady’s points. She says that this is an attack on public servants, but it is absolutely the contrary. She talks as if this is an attack on union facility time. It is not. I said in my statement—she might have listened to it; she had it in advance—that I supported the use of facility time. Facility time for trade union duties is protected by law. Trade union duties—the resolution of disputes and grievances—are important, and the presence of trade union officials and representatives within the workplace can be helpful in achieving that. What we are concerned with is the abuse and the use of paid time off in facility time for large numbers of civil servants to attend their union conferences with their expenses paid by the public. That is not acceptable. That is what we have called time on.
I know that the hon. Lady and her colleagues do not like it, and we know what the reason is. The reason is perfectly simple: it is that the Labour party is paid for and puppet-mastered by the trade unions. She should come clean and say that the Labour party election campaign that she is trying to hold together and conduct is paid for by exactly the trade union leaders who have no doubt written the script that she has read out to the House today.
Mr Maude
My hon. Friend is completely right. To be honest, it was a complete shock to us to see how much this system had been abused, and how little effort was made by our predecessors to count and control the costs of what was happening. Opposition Members say that this is an attack on public servants, but the truth is that public servants would much rather have this money spent on public services, which is their vocation, than on supporting trade union officials at the taxpayers’ expense.
John McDonnell
We are going to have to develop some criteria for providing statements to this House, because this is a complete waste of the House’s time. The Minister needs to get up to speed: the Public and Commercial Services Union has never been affiliated to the Labour party and has never funded it, so he can drop these accusations. This is all about union busting, so I want to know what investigation took place into the union-busting strategy within HMRC, where leaked reports said that trade unionists were to be victimised and the union to be broken within that department. What did the right hon. Gentleman do about that?
Mr Maude
First, I never said that about the PCS. I know it is not affiliated. The PCS dislikes the Labour party nearly as much as it dislikes us. Secondly, when it comes to attacks on public servants, the hon. Gentleman’s attack on hard-working public servants in HMRC—the management of HMRC, those senior hard-working officials who have decided in conducting their vocation of public service that check-off should be discontinued—is disgraceful.
Oral Answers to Questions
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I think that what Britain’s families need most to help them get on is the security of a good school place, which we are providing, the security of a good job, which we are providing, and the security of a safe community, which we are providing. On Labour’s campaign, I would say that the wheels are falling off the wagon, but I think that they are falling off the bus. We now know that it is not going to be driven by anyone on the Front Bench. Surprise, surprise, it is going to be driven by Unite.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Q11. The Prime Minister may have been briefed that the Care Quality Commission yesterday published its report on Hillingdon hospital, my local hospital. It found that we have an extremely dedicated, hard-working and professional team of staff, but patient safety is being put at risk by critical staff shortages and by the fabric of the building, which one of the report’s consultees described as being like something from the third world. Will the Prime Minister meet me and my parliamentary colleagues in Hillingdon to look at how we can secure the funds to make our constituents safe?
The Prime Minister
The CQC’s findings are clearly disappointing, but the trust seems to be taking immediate steps to address the issues that have been identified: raising standards for infection control and cleanliness; enhanced and more frequent training; and recruiting more permanent staff. I think that this relates to a bigger point, which is that for years in our NHS, when there was a problem with a hospital, it was swept under the carpet, rather than the hospital being properly examined, inspected and, if necessary, put into special measures and then corrected. That is what is happening now in our health service, and that is all to the good. It is important to say that on the day Sir Robert Francis published his report on how important it is to listen to whistleblowers in the NHS. Unlike the Labour party, we are determined to listen to the Francis report and to whistleblowers. I will certainly ensure that the Health Secretary meets the hon. Gentleman, his parliamentary colleagues and others in Hillingdon to make sure that the hospital gets the attention it deserves.
Recall of MPs Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess.
I will speak first about the clause as it stands. I will then explain the purposes of the Opposition amendments and set out our view of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and others. Finally, I will briefly address the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and others. Later in the debate, when the arguments have been set out more fully, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) will make another contribution to sum up our position.
I want to place on the record Labour’s support for the principle of recall when an elected representative’s conduct falls well below the standards that Parliament and their constituents expect. That is why our manifesto in 2010 promised to introduce recall legislation and why we supported the Bill’s Second Reading last Tuesday. We made it clear during that debate that we would table amendments to strengthen the Bill. Before I turn to the amendments that we have tabled, as promised, I will talk briefly about the Standards Committee, which recommends the suspensions from the House that could trigger a recall.
The Opposition agree with those inside and outside Parliament who believe that we must reform the Standards Committee in order to build public trust. Although amendments on the Standards Committee were not within the scope of the Bill, I want to place on the record the Labour party’s support for a radical overhaul of the Committee. That would include the removal of the Government’s majority and an increase in the role and authority of its lay members. We propose that at least half the Committee should be lay members and that the Chair of the Committee should not be a Member of Parliament. I note that the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), who was the Leader of the House for two years, has backed changes to the Standards Committee. If his comments are indicative of a wider view on the coalition Benches, let us move swiftly to build cross-party support for reform of the Standards Committee.
We tabled four of the amendments that are being considered today and I will set out how each of them would strengthen the Bill. Amendment 45 seeks to amend the threshold for recall that relates to suspensions from the House of Commons. The Government propose that MPs will have to be suspended for more than four sitting weeks or 28 calendar days for the threshold to be reached for recall petitions. According to the excellent research services of the House of Commons Library, it appears that that threshold would have been met on only two occasions over the past two decades, and that no one found guilty during the cash for questions scandal received a sufficiently long suspension to meet the Government’s proposed threshold.
Labour believes that that is not acceptable and therefore proposes the halving of the threshold figures. We are clear, however, that we should not lower the threshold to such a level as would merely allow vexatious and mischievous claims. In addition, we must recognise that parliamentary dissent is part of our democratic heritage, and a Member who is standing up sincerely for their beliefs should not find their right to protest compromised by unnecessary recall petitions. None of those who were suspended for protesting in the Chamber—unless they were serial repeat offenders—would be caught by our amendment. Therefore, we believe that it strikes the right balance of strengthening the right to recall without jeopardising parliamentary democracy.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
May I be absolutely clear on this? Is my hon. Friend saying that there could be a cumulative number of days and number of suspensions—I take this as a matter of personal interest?
Thomas Docherty
I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. We are clear—I look to the Minister to clarify this when he responds—that it is a case of suspension, not a running total, although one hopes that we will not see my hon. Friend too near to the Dispatch Box and the mace in the near future.
Mr Heath
That is another precise difficulty in the drafting that I foresaw. If the hon. Gentleman looked at my new clause—there are so many tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) that I cannot find it at the moment. [Interruption.] Yes, new clause 7, which states:
“The court may consider such conduct whether or not it is committed in England and Wales, and whether or not it is committed directly in carrying out the office of member of parliament.”
In other words, it deals with the Member of Parliament irrespective of that hazy definition of what the terms of contract of MPs are. I accept that this is a difficulty, however, and I do not want to pretend anything other than that these are difficult issues. I hope the Committee will accept that this is a genuine attempt to find a solution to a very difficult problem.
John McDonnell
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the struggle he has entered into. Let me provide him with this practical example that occurred in my constituency in the 1980s. Statements were made in this House that we considered to be of a racist nature, and we thought that they would have been prosecutable if they had been made outside this place. The individual, however, was covered by parliamentary privilege, so was not brought to book. He could only have been brought to book if there had been a right for the electorate to trigger a recall.
Mr Heath
That is the other major drafting difficulty. I do not believe it would be right for me to put something before the Committee that accidentally repealed the Bill of Rights. I think the Bill of Rights provides important protection to Members. My proposals skate on the very edge of what counts as parliamentary privilege and what does not. If the words had been uttered here, they would not be covered by the recall procedure, but I do not think they should be covered by that procedure rather than by having a general election. That is my answer.
What mechanism am I proposing? It is for 100 electors from the constituency—[Interruption.]
Anne Marie Morris
No, I will not: read my lips.
You have been incredibly indulgent, Mr Hood, and I know that many other Members wish to speak in this debate. New clause 2 goes to a matter of trust and is sufficiently important for me to ask for it to have a separate vote when we decide on the amendments. On that note, I will conclude my comments.
John McDonnell
I am grateful to the Minister for his response on the calculation of days. To be absolutely clear—again, this is not out of personal interest at all—I take it that this totting-up process is within one parliamentary Session. I would be happy if the Minister confirmed that.
John McDonnell
If there is to be an additional number of days, those cannot be carried over from one Session or some of us may well be in trouble or face the 20 days. I take the straightforward view that this is an evolving piece of legislation, and I am grateful—the Committee will not often hear this—for how Front Benchers have tried to get a dialogue going to hone the legislation to make it effective. I do not know—who am I to speak for the general public?—but from what I understand, I do not think those who have been campaigning for the right of recall for some time will be satisfied either with what the Government are proposing or with the Opposition amendments. I think the public want something much more direct on the ability to recall an MP not just for misconduct or wrongdoing, but because they have said or done something that is so outwith the opinion of their constituents, or so obnoxious, that people are willing to campaign for their recall.
I do not find that a problem. Democracy is a rough old trade at times. We live and die by the sword and the votes. On a number of occasions since I have been in the House, elements within my electorate would have sought a right of recall because of my views on Ireland—I chaired the Guildford Four campaign for a number of years—or, at one point in time, because of my views on the life expectancy of Mrs Thatcher. They should have that right. They should be able to bring together fellow constituents to suggest that something is so appalling that a Member of Parliament should be brought before the court of the electorate once again.
The fundamental issue is the one that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised. How do we get that equivalence of influence or power? I understand his argument that one newspaper with vast amounts of resources could campaign against an MP. The Sun had a pop at me at one point in time but, when that occurred, my popularity went up and my majority increased—that has happened to others. He makes a valid point that that might be different if there is a by-election threat or recall outside a general election.
We need further thought on the right of reply, which the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) mentioned. How can that be strengthened in terms of both the statements that are made and the media? That throws up the issue of media ownership, which is a wider debate. We will be forced to come back to that and other issues at a later stage, but my view is that the electorate are not just demanding the right of reply, and there will be a reaction if we do not give them a right of recall beyond the proposed one.
Some people are not happy with the right of recall campaign by 38 Degrees. It was effective not because it was backed by big finance or a national newspaper, but because it was a grass-roots campaign. E-mails coming in their hundreds can be annoying to some MPs, but they demonstrate the vibrancy of our democracy and people’s interest.
Politics has changed in this country. People’s views are no longer shaped solely by the newspaper they read or by the influence of the magnates who own large sections of the media. We are witnessing a lot more people power. People are able to influence individual campaigns and therefore, rightly, to influence MPs’ views. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) was anxious about individual campaigns—he mentioned a planning proposal for the beach. I welcome those campaigns. I welcome people’s ability to mobilise and express their views, no matter how forcefully. I find that, when I explain to campaigners that I cannot support them, I win their respect. I am sure the situation is the same in his constituency on most occasions.
Geraint Davies
I welcome campaigns in my constituency and a vibrant and active democracy. The question is whether we allow a situation whereby an MP is subject to a series of recall demands or intimidation, which would take us to a different place from the one that my hon. Friend describes, which is simply a healthy democracy.
John McDonnell
I do not believe that people petitioning or lobbying, or even media campaigns, are intimidation.
John McDonnell
Well, the right to recall time and again is the exercise of the democratic will of the local people. I do not find that intimidating. It is a democratic expression of views and I welcome it.
In Scotland, there was a huge turnout in the referendum. All of us welcomed it. People might not have welcomed the result at the end of the day, but we all welcomed that turnout. It is alleged that there were elements of intimidation in the campaign. Nevertheless, people had the sense to make up their own minds, whatever intimidation went on.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank my Friend for giving way on that point. I support the amendment we will vote on later. Clearly, what he says about expanding democracy and participation is true—it is welcome and good. Does he agree that there is a very large elephant parked outside the Chamber, namely the House of Lords, which is not subject to any kind of electoral accountability, and yet has a huge influence on legislation and can decide the future of Bills and laws in this country? Surely we need the right to recall or remove Members of the House of Lords.
John McDonnell
We will draft amendments for the next stage of the Bill. I had not even thought of amending it to that extent, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. We could make it a constitutional reform Bill.
Geraint Davies
I completely agree that the referendum in Scotland was a great expression of the democratic process, but does my hon. Friend agree with a series of referendums on Scotland? An MP could be recalled every couple of months if there was a focused attack on them. I presume he would not want another vote in Scotland, but perhaps he would.
John McDonnell
There may well be another referendum in due course. We might have to listen to the electorate on that and respect their views. If there is a continuous flow of recalls in an individual constituency, that might reflect that there is something seriously wrong within it. I believe the electorate are wiser than that. If a small group campaigned against an individual MP, the electorate would see through it. The electorate who vote in a recall are the same as those who will vote in a general election. I do not see that there would be a significant difference, apart from, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has said, the focus of big money or a powerful magnate on a short campaign, which we need to address in the debate.
Mr Kevan Jones
I hear what my hon. Friend says, but he should look at what has happened in the United States. Big money gets behind the campaign. There is a recall when the big money does not like the result—the gun control lobby in Colorado is a good example. The turnout in the recall election can be quite small—I believe it was 36%. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said that we would need 51%, but it will be 51% of a small amount of the electorate.
John McDonnell
I say again that my hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point on the influence of big money in recall elections, but I remind the House that, even after a recall, the individual has the right to stand at the general election, when the same electorate will vote. Therefore, if an individual is unfairly treated in a recall ballot in that way and unfortunately loses, they can stand at the general election, in which they will have the same standing as every other candidate who puts their name forward. There are protections, but he has a valid point that Front Benchers need to consider. How can an individual have the right to voice their views during a recall campaign in a balanced way, with an equivalence of resources and access to the media? That goes beyond new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot, which I support. When the recall campaigns take off, they will be driven in some instances into the local media, and in some instances the national media.
It is a simple principle: trust the electorate and the people. The proposed system still has the hurdle of the House taking a decision on whether a recall process is set in motion. The proposal still involves the House narrowing the definition of the basis for recall. Our constituents might have a much wider view of misconduct and wrongdoing, and we must listen to them.
This is not just about restoring confidence in Parliament. We went downhill in the expenses scandal—that disaster affected all MPs, no matter how honest they were, and those who drove us into the mire damaged us all. We are slowly building confidence. I agree with other hon. Members: people come into the House to do good. This was an honourable profession, and I believe it still is. For most of us, the proudest moment of our lives was when we were elected to represent our constituents. The recall discussions will give the message that we have listened and are willing to tackle the problem, no matter how hard it is.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman says. However, does he agree that MPs from the larger parties have a degree of protection in that they can afford to continue to fight against recall petitions and elections, and that if MPs from minor parties, who have limited resources, are constantly put under the pressure of recall, they would be eliminated not for any wrongdoing, but simply because they can no longer afford to fight to hold their seat?
John McDonnell
That is a valid point about equivalence of arms, and the Front Benches should examine further the controls on expenditure during such periods, as well as the right of access to the media. I should point out, however, that some of us in the larger parties might not get complete protection in some instances—I shall put it no more strongly than that.
I support the amendments, and I welcome the willingness of those on the Front Benches to work together to get a workable piece of legislation that we can all support. I also look forward to the amendment to abolish the House of Lords to be tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
This six-hour debate has been at all times thoughtful, respectful and sober, on an issue of great significance and also of great complexity. In the time that remains, I want to address myself to those who have spoken out worrying that we are doing too much and possibly repeating the mistakes of the past, and to those who, conversely, feel that we might be doing too little and should be going further, or that we are embarking on a piecemeal strategy. I also want to underline the significance of the voices of Members in all parts of the House who have spoken out so emphatically against those who might interpret this as a conflict of religions—as a “west versus the rest”.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Before I give way, let me join the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and others who stood in solidarity and spoke out in support of the families and loved ones of Alan Henning and John Cantlie. It is impossible to imagine the anguish that they must be going through. I also join the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and others who said how important it was for us to bear in mind the great courage and professionalism of our servicemen and women who are once again being asked to put themselves in danger’s way for our collective safety.
John McDonnell
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the stance of the Prime Minister, who supports a policy of not coming back to the House to ask for approval of further action, whether it is action against Syria or boots on the ground?
The Deputy Prime Minister
What the Prime Minister said, and what I think every reasonable person would accept, is that if any Government at any point find that they need to act very quickly indeed to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe or to protect British citizens here or abroad, clearly the Government of the day have the right—[Interruption.] There may be circumstances in which action needs to be taken in a matter of hours or overnight.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has informed us that he will take action without parliamentary authority if he feels it necessary. May I place on record an appeal to you, Mr Speaker, that if there is any indication of further action beyond the remit of this motion, that you consider yourself to have the power to convene the House?
Mr Speaker
I am guided by and must operate within the Standing Orders of the House. I am not under the Standing Orders of the House so empowered. However, for the time being—I say this in the best possible spirit—I will simply note that the hon. Gentleman has expressed his view with his customary force. It is on the record.
Tributes to Tony Benn
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Tony, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), founded the Socialist Campaign Group, of which I am the chair. I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who cannot be here today because he is in Geneva as part of a human rights delegation.
Tony inspired my generation. We did not just respect him; as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, we loved the man. I want to go back to what my hon. Friend said about the longest suicide note in history, because it is interesting that it has come up time and again among the commemorations of the past week or so.
I want to go back not to the manifesto of 1983, but to Labour’s programme of 1982, which was the Bennite programme, and virtually all of it was written by Tony Benn. It is worth looking back at what it said. It was absolutely prophetic. It basically said, “We will create a society that is more democratic, more fair, more just and more equal.” How would we do it? Tony’s ideas in that programme were straightforward: we would undertake a fundamental, irreversible shift in the redistribution of wealth and power. How would we do that? Through a fair and just tax system, tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance, taking control of the Bank of England, preventing speculation in the City and the banks because it could be dangerous to our long-term economic health, and creating full employment. That is what he was about. That is what he inspired us to do.
It is interesting that he said we should invest in housing, health and education; give all young people the opportunity to stay on at school with an education maintenance allowance; and make sure that they had a guarantee of an apprenticeship or training and the opportunity to go to university, not by paying a fee but on a grant. That was his programme in 1982. It was prophetic and years in advance of its time. He said that what we needed to create the wealth was an industrial strategy—a manufacturing base based on new technology and skills. Actually, I remember him talking in one of his speeches about alternative energy sources, well in advance of the debate about climate change. The programme also included equal rights for women and for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
What else was he committed to? He lost a brother in the war, so he was committed to peace. And bravely, courageously, he called for inclusive talks in Northern Ireland—for everyone to get around the table to secure peace. He also said that we needed to control the arms trade and that no more arms should be sold to dictators in the middle east for them to use as weapons against their own people and to destabilise the region. Of course, he also argued for unilateral nuclear disarmament, which I continue to support and which remains a popular cause for many.
He was a European—sceptical about the European Union, but a true European. I found that inspiring. He inspired my generation and he inspired generations to come. What a world we would have created if we had listened to him. But more important, what a world we can create now if we listen to him.
Solidarity and go well, comrade. You made a significant contribution to all of our lives. I hope we will be able to implement the lessons you taught us, when Labour next gets back into power.
Deregulation Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
And so we move on from “Cash in the Attic”. I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as although I was present for the beginning of the Minister’s introductory statement, I had to leave the Chamber to attend a sitting of a statutory instrument Committee, which went on for a fair period of time. I was going to speak about the point raised by the National Union of Journalists about the security of sources, but I believe it has been said that that will be reviewed by the Government, so it is clear that I am more effective out of the Chamber than I am in it. I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) in her expressions of concern about the overall nature of the Bill and how deregulation in a range of areas will impact on key policies to which the Government have signed up, but from which they now seem to be resiling, especially regarding environmental protection and tackling climate change.
Let me run through the clauses that will require further clarification as the Bill makes progress and express some of my concerns. Clause 23 removes restrictions on the provision of passenger rail services by amending the Transport Act 1968, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), and permits the passenger transport executives, or PTEs, to carry rail passengers. That is a major step forward in devolving regional rail franchises, but there is a lack of clarity about the consequences for PTEs. Will they remain as local economic regulators or will they be equipped with sufficient funds to provide rail passenger services? It would be useful to receive clarity from the Department for Transport about how it views the future role of PTEs, as the clause calls that role into question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) talked about the removal under clause 26 of the duty to order a rehearing of a marine accident investigation. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to reopen marine accident investigations in the light of new evidence, but that duty will be abolished. My hon. Friend spoke about the MV Derbyshire tragedy in 1980, which led to a campaign being waged by many people, including families and trade unions across the piece—the National Union of Seamen, as it was at the time, Nautilus and the International Transport Workers Federation. It was a significant victory when then Secretary of State exercised his power to enable an investigation of that case to take place. It would therefore be a real concern if that power were removed from the Secretary of State, because the function is legitimate—
Mr Letwin
Just to correct the hon. Gentleman, nobody is removing a power; what is being removed is a duty. The fact that the Secretary of State has the power to order such inquiries is absolutely fine; the problem is that he has a duty to do so even in a case when he and everybody else knows perfectly well that there is absolutely nothing we can do as a result of the new evidence. The simple existence of new evidence will force an inquiry that costs millions of pounds, and that is all that we are trying to end.
John McDonnell
I welcome that clarification, but it would be helpful and reassuring if there were guidance about how the power will be exercised in the future. There is a concern that removing the duty will mean that the power will not necessarily be exercised without our again having to mobilise long-winded campaigns.
John McDonnell
I find that extremely helpful. I chair the RMT parliamentary group, and it would be really useful in discussions with the Department for Transport about this matter if there was full consultation with the unions concerned—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and Nautilus International—as well as the UK Chamber of Shipping and others, and especially some of those groups that have campaigned on investigations over the years. It is important that we assure people that if there is an accident—we all hope that there is not—there will be a proper investigation.
Clause 59 deals with ambulatory references to international shipping instruments. It amends the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to enable the Government to update international shipping conventions without having to introduce secondary legislation. The Joint Committee expressed concern that that will undermine and bypass full parliamentary scrutiny. For example, there is concern in the shipping industry—it has been expressed by the UK Chamber of Shipping, as well as the Nautilus UK and RMT unions—regarding the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, under which changes to the sulphur emissions regime in Europe are due to come into effect in January 2015, with progressive measures continuing to the end of the decade. It would be unfortunate if something that had a major impact on the shipping industry did not receive full parliamentary scrutiny, as might be the case under the new procedures.
I share concerns that have been expressed about the provisions on the exercise of regulatory functions, and I say that on behalf of many people who work in the transport sector. We are told that consultations will take place over the coming months on which bodies will be covered, particularly regarding the Office of Rail Regulation, which was not included in the original list of bodies. Bodies that are included in relation to transport include the Office of Rail Regulation, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and traffic commissioners. There was a period in which market forces and economic concerns overrode safety concerns as a result of the early privatisation regimes, but we would not want to go back to the days when those economic concerns undermined safety, especially in industries such as rail and shipping. As the consultation is rolled out, I would welcome the Government ensuring that there is full consultation with all relevant bodies, particularly the unions, with experience of the period when safety was undermined, especially in the rail sector, so that that can inform the introduction of this aspect of the Bill. I hope that the Government will think again about the drafting of the proposal, because there are serious concerns about the conflicts that it will bring about between considerations of safety and of economic costs.
The Government should approach a number of the Bill’s proposals on education with trepidation, especially the devolution of school dates to individual schools. There is an understanding that parents want some certainty about school hours and holidays. With the devolution of such measures, near chaos could break out as individual schools determine their own dates and holidays. I caution the Government that parents may become anxious as the wider community becomes aware of these measures.
There are concerns—certainly among teachers—about schedule 14, which sets out proposals to reduce burdens on schools, including the removal of the obligation on employers of teachers in English maintained schools to have regard to statutory guidance relating to staffing matters such as the appointment, suspension, discipline and dismissal of teachers. There is concern that that may lead to the removal of the obligation on the Secretary of State to provide guidance on staffing matters, which might ultimately be a threat to school staffing regulations. If that is the case, schools will be concerned that they will have to take individual legal advice on staffing matters rather than adhering to what is relatively clear staff guidance and regulations from central Government. The Government must look at the consequences of such a broad-brush legislative proposal.
I am anxious about the removal of home-school agreements, which are good and are working on the ground. They were welcomed by the educational establishment and have general support, so I do not understand why the Government have provided in schedule 14 to remove the requirement on governing bodies to adopt such an a agreement.
As others have said, we all welcome the ability to remove unnecessary or archaic regulations, but the Bill is littered with proposals to remove regulations that are relevant, and their removal could have consequences beyond those calculated by the Government, including an impact on safety, which is the major concern that I have tried to express this evening.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Consensus seems to be emerging among Members across the Committee, with the exception of Government Ministers. We want legislation that reflects, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, the reality of the lobbying industry as it operates at the moment.
Amendment 2, which was tabled by Labour spokespeople, amendments 48 and 49, which were tabled by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, amendment 161, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and new clause 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), all seek to achieve some understanding in government that the Bill should reflect the real world. On Second Reading, one of the best speeches was by the hon. Member for St Albans, who talked about her personal experience of what lobbying does in a particular constituency and the impact that it can have on one’s constituents. We want legislation that protects the individual Member of Parliament as well as his or her constituents.
I raised the example in my own constituency of the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow and what has happened over the past three decades, but more intensively over the past decade. The homes of some 10,000 people are at risk; 50,000 people, and perhaps more, are at risk of the atmosphere being poisoned in such a way that air pollution far exceeds European limits; 2 million people will experience increased noise across London. There was lobbying from the aviation industry, particularly BAA, formerly the British Airports Authority. A lobbying firm was employed, but its activities were largely a smokescreen for the real lobbying by BAA employees. As I said on Second Reading, many of them had passes to enter the Department for Transport and meet officials. The Bill does not catch that aspect of lobbying, as we have heard in every interpretation by Members on both sides of the Committee.
Amendment 48, however, is rather inadequate, as its definition of lobbying relates to the lobbying of Ministers and permanent secretaries, and does not relate in any way to the real world of lobbying. In the BAA lobby on the third runway there was, as I said, wining and dining of Ministers and senior civil servants, but that was a smokescreen for the intensive lobbying of fairly junior civil servants who undertook the assessments of traffic growth, air pollution impacts, noise impacts and the logistical arrangements around the airport. By the time that the reports that they prepared landed on the desks of the permanent secretary and of Ministers the decision had virtually been made.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend illustrates the complexity of the situation. The staff of BAA would have been accompanied by planning consultants, highways consultants and lawyers, who also would have been on the payroll to lobby for the third runway and therefore should be included in our consideration if we want a proper Bill.
John McDonnell
That is an extremely valid point. In the real world of lobbying, I have experience of that constituency issue, with BAA employees employed virtually full-time—yes, with a range of experts—intensively lobbying relatively junior staff in the Department for Transport and the Treasury, building up a head of steam around a particular demand from BAA that eventually shapes the decision made by Ministers. My understanding of the debate so far is that such lobbying would not be covered by the Bill and BAA in its new form, as Heathrow airport, would not be caught by it.
Things have moved on. Governments are increasingly outsourcing the preparation of the material that will eventually enable Ministers to take decisions. That outsourcing relies upon the commissioning of external experts—not within Government, but often academics and others—and in addition to that, the setting up of various commissions. The Howard Davies commission is consulting various organisations on behalf of Government about the expansion of aviation in London and the south-east, especially the issues surrounding the expansion of Heathrow. My understanding of the Bill is that the lobbying of the external advisers and members of such commissions is also not caught by the legislation.
Members may have experienced that process, but let me explain. An intensive lobbying exercise is being undertaken by the aviation industry across the country. Businesses that own individual airports are intensively lobbying Howard Davies’s commission, and they are lobbying external experts commissioned to undertake pieces of work, because obviously they are looking to expand their particular airport. I do not believe, and I am happy if the Minister wants to advise me differently, that any of that lobbying will be caught by the Bill.
The plea from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford, for St Albans and for Foyle—right across the piece—was that, if we are going to legislate, we must legislate in the real world, and we are not doing so. We are going through an exercise that people will think is a waste of time, and many will find it disingenuous. Some may think that, when we have ticked the box, we have sorted out lobbying, but the real-world lobbying will go on as before.
As the Prime Minister rightly said, lobbying is open to the potential for scandal. There have been scandals. What causes me anxiety is that I am prevented from protecting my constituents from a heavily resourced and effective internal lobbying machine within an organisation that could destroy parts of my community and the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of people in west London. The Bill does not meet the purpose. It does not rise to the challenge that the Prime Minister set us, which is to ensure that we have a transparent lobbying process. That transparency can, we hope, enable us to have some element of probity within the system of lobbying overall.
I take what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said. The criticism has come from all parts of the Committee. There must be some recognition from Government that these legislative proposals do not stack up. I know that by way of a taunt to the Leader of the House what happened in the case of the NHS legislation was mentioned earlier, but I think the idea of a short pause while we try to get some consensus discussions going is the most constructive way forward. In that way we can learn the lessons from the lobbying industry itself. Members of this House across the parties have had years of experience of lobbying, so we can get some decent legislation in place, otherwise we will bring ourselves into potential disrepute. Members of the public who expect us to represent and protect them will think we are not doing our jobs effectively.
I urge the Government to listen to their own Back Benchers as much as to those on the Opposition Benches who have no axe to grind. Let us see whether we can have some cross-party discussions over the next week or two. We should not allow the Bill to leave this House and expect the House of Lords to sort it out, as usual. That is a derogation of our duty. We must do the work here and send the best Bill we possibly can to the other place, because that is what we are paid for.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful, Mr Caton, to catch your eye in this debate.
Many colleagues have commented on the drafting of the Bill. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the merits of the private Member’s Bill. Last year I introduced a private Member’s Bill on this very subject, supported by our Front-Bench team. I was lucky to work with Simon Patrick and the formidable Kate Emms on the drafting of that Bill. May I helpfully suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that the Clerks of the House might be well qualified to help the Government draft a more effective and fully baked Bill than the one before us?
I gently point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda that he mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) by name. I know that my hon. Friend is not a properly read parliamentarian, but I am fairly confident that according to “Erskine May” we are not allowed to mention the name of a right hon. Member, even in a quotation, but I am sure that he did not mean to do so. As he is a new boy in this place, we will let that one pass.
The Government have been caught by their own phenomenally tight definition. I shall speak mainly about Opposition amendment 18, which would remove paragraph 3(1)(a) and (b) of schedule 1, which is ambiguous and creates uncertainty. Sub-paragraph (1) creates a loophole which cripples the aims of the Bill. On Second Reading and in the debate today, I have been struck by the fact that the Government consistently believe that, if they say that a measure is not intended to have a particular effect, that somehow means that it will not have that effect.
The Government were correct one time. As the Deputy Leader of the House said earlier, the Government are not seeking to capture lobbyists—they are seeking to capture 1% of those who would otherwise be defined as lobbyists. Credit is due to the Government; that is the one element that is consistent with their intentions. Unfortunately, sub-paragraph (1) does not capture even that 1%. Sub-paragraph (1)(a) excludes
“a business which is mainly a non-lobbying business”,
and sub-paragraph (1)(b) excludes a business whose lobbying efforts are
“an insubstantial proportion of that business.”
That would mean, for example, that big tobacco firms did not have to declare their in-house lobbying activities, but a small firm of public affairs professionals or consultants campaigning on behalf of, say, Action on Smoking and Health, would have to do so. I will return to that point later. The term “non-lobbying business” is insubstantial and too vague and does not have any real meaning.
The Government’s attempt to try to correct this error, amendment 93, which says
“consists mainly of non-lobbying”,
does not improve matters in the slightest. Unfortunately, what the Government by their own definition mean by lobbying is purely that direct communication with Ministers of the Crown and permanent secretaries. I could understand if the Government were defining lobbying as being what we think of as lobbying. It is interesting the number of Members on both sides of the House who describe themselves as lobbyists. Unfortunately, I suspect that none of those so-called lobbyists are actually lobbyists under the Government’s own definition. They have defeated themselves by drawing their amendments so closely.
Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want to thank the Conservative Back Benchers, a number of Liberal Democrat Members, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary for their intervention over the last 48 hours, which halted what looked like a headlong rush to war. It is widely acknowledged that the American President has set a timetable, most probably for an attack this weekend. He came under pressure last year from the Republicans and McCain to set red lines as parameters. It was inevitable that that would escalate the demand for military action at a later date. That might explain the American position, but it does not explain why a sovereign independent state called Great Britain should automatically fall into line in support of military action. If there is a lesson of the past 48 hours, it is that no Prime Minister and no Government should take this House or the British people for granted on matters of this nature.
The reality is that, yes, time has moved on since Iraq. People have made references to lessons from Iraq, and I want to refer to three. First, there is no automatic approval of, or even trust in, a prime ministerial judgment on an issue such as this involving the country in military action without overwhelming justification, evidence and thorough debate. The evidence before us from the JIC today says that there is “some evidence” to suggest regime culpability in the gas attack and that it is “highly likely” that the Syrian regime is responsible. I have to say that “highly likely” and “some evidence” are not good enough to risk further lives, to risk counter attack, to inflame the whole region, to risk dragging other states into this war and, at the same time, to increase the risk of terrorism on British streets.
The second lesson of Iraq is based upon the principles of humanitarian intervention. It must be objectively clear that there is no practical alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved. I do not believe that it has been demonstrated that all practical alternatives have been exhausted. In particular, discussions around the permanent stationing of UN weapons inspectors in Syria to prevent the use of these weapons have not been exhausted. That, linked to an insistence on the participation of all sides in a UN peace conference, has not been exhausted.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend not surprised that the British Government appear to have made no rational efforts to try to build a relationship with the new Government of Iran, which might be part of a road towards some kind of peace settlement?
John McDonnell
That leads to my third lesson from Iraq, and from Afghanistan. It is to ensure that any intervention does not cost lives and does not make matters worse; it is the “do no harm” principle. No matter how surgical the strike that is planned by the Americans or by us, lives will be lost and lives will be put at risk. A negotiated peace is the only long-term solution for Syria; that is what has been expressed by members of all parties in the House. Military intervention is more likely to undermine the potential for peace talks. Hawks within the Assad regime will be even more intransigent and defiant. The opposition—the so-called rebels—will have no incentive, because they will believe that the US and, yes, the UK and others will be on their side and that they can achieve a military victory. Military intervention would also alienate Iran and the Russians—the very people we look to now to bring Assad to the negotiating table.
If we have learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is this: military intervention does not just cost lives; it undermines the credibility of the international institutions that we look to to secure peace in the world and, in the long run, it undermines peace settlements across the globe. Therefore, I believe that we should focus on conflict prevention and conflict resolution and not support military aggression. That is why I will not support any motion that, in principle, supports military intervention in Syria, which can only do more harm than good.
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)
Thank God for the erudition and historical memory of the last three speakers; those qualities were almost entirely absent from the Prime Minister’s initial address. He was clearly making a speech that was not the one he intended to make here this afternoon. Otherwise, Mr Speaker, he would not have persuaded you to recall the House of Commons, at vast public expense, to decide that we were actually going to decide on this matter next week or the week after, when we shall be back here in any case. It is absolutely evident that, if it were not for the democratic revolt that has been under way in this House and outside among the wider public against this war, the engines in Cyprus would now be revving and the cruise missiles would be ready to fly this very weekend. Any attempt by the Prime Minister to pretend that he had intended to take this course of action all along is just bunkum.
The unease on both sides of the House, demonstrated in two exceptional speeches by the last speaker and the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), reflects the feelings of the people of this country. According to The Daily Telegraph this morning, only 11% of the public support Britain becoming involved in a war in Syria. Can any British Government have ever imagined sending their men and women to war with the support of only 11% of the public?
There is no compelling evidence—to use the Leader of the Opposition’s words—that the Assad regime is responsible for this crime, yet. It is not that the regime is not bad enough to do it; everybody knows that it is bad enough to do it. The question is: is it mad enough to do it? Is it mad enough to launch a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on the very day on which a United Nations chemical weapons inspection team arrives there? That must be a new definition of madness. Of course, if Assad is that mad, how mad will he be once we have launched a blizzard of Tomahawk cruise missiles on his country?
As I heard those on the Front Benches describe how bad Assad was, I wondered just why the former Prime Minister forced Her Majesty to billet him in her guest room at Buckingham Palace just a few years ago, and why a former Prime Minister recommended him for an honour. I remembered how he was hailed from all corners as a moderniser. The narrative has now changed, of course, because this Government are intent on regime change in Damascus.
That brings me to the only other point I am going to be able to make in the time available. The reason for the unease is that people can see the character of the Syrian opposition. They have seen the horrific videos that we have heard about. Take a look at the video of one of the commanders of the Syrian revolution cutting open the chest of a human being and eating his heart and liver. He videotaped himself doing it and put it up on YouTube because he thought that it might be considered attractive. Take a look at the videos of Christian priests having their heads sawn off—not chopped off; sawn off—with breadknives. Even a bishop in the Christian Church was murdered by these people. Every religious minority in Syria—there are 23 of them—is petrified at the thought of a victory for the Syrian rebels, whom the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have been doing their utmost to supply with weapons and money over the last two years. They cannot deny that. They say that this is now about this new crime, whoever committed it, but it has been the Government’s policy for two years to bring about the defeat of the regime in Damascus and a victory for the kind of people who are responsible for these crimes.
I have 20 seconds left—
John McDonnell
If only for another 60 seconds. The hon. Gentleman made reference to arms supplied to Syria, but let us remember where those arms have come from over decades—from this country.
George Galloway
Indeed.
I now have 60 seconds at my disposal, so let me make this point more clearly. When did the 2.5 billion people of Russia and China cease to be members of the international community? Who are you on the other side to decide what the international community should do, if you are unable to persuade the Security Council to go along with your point of view? Who are you to decide that you will launch a war in any case?
I keep hearing about the unreasonable use of the veto. I have heard that many times in this House over the past few years. The United States has vetoed every attempt to obtain justice for the Palestinian people and to punish and issue retribution for international lawbreaking on the part of Israel, and nobody in this House has said one word about it.
Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
John McDonnell Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I know that you are anxious to allow others to contribute, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope to encompass my remarks in two or three minutes. I also hope that the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) will forgive me, a reactionary, for being progressive, but occasionally that is what one has to do.
I think I could have made this point very simply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister in an intervention, but I was unable to catch his eye. The general tenor of his remarks was that this was an argument got up by lawyers, that he had tried to make more and more concessions, and that we were dancing on the head of a pin. I think that there is a fundamental point of principle that can be expressed very clearly by a Conservative. There has been a great deal of reportage this week about what the Conservative party stands for. In my view, it stands for a deep and abiding distrust of the state and its agencies, and a desire always to stand up for civil liberties. That is why our party was founded.
When the Minister leaves the House tonight, as he goes through the Members’ Entrance he will see on his right a small plaque which marks the site of the Court of Star Chamber. Why did Toryism develop in the 17th and 18th centuries? It was in retaliation against the powers of states encompassed in that secret court, whereby people could be tried without knowing the evidence against them. I know perfectly well that we are not talking about criminal cases now, but civil cases too are very important. Justice, in my view, is indivisible.
The principle of justice in this country as I understand it, and as maintained by the Conservative party for centuries, is that any citizen can go to a court of law as a litigant, and his case will be heard in public. He will give his evidence in public, the defendant will give his evidence in public, the plaintiff can cross-examine the defendant on that evidence, and the defendant will know the evidence that is adduced against him. That is a fundamental principle of our courts of law.
It is not good enough to say that the judges will be very careful, or that it will be just a matter of a few cases out of several thousand. Perceptions are important, and what does our country stand for, above all else? It stands for the principle that a defendant knows the evidence against him. It is not good enough that some judge, however careful, can cross-examine on the basis of that evidence, and it is not good enough that some special advocate can do the same, because the defendant alone knows his case, and he alone must be allowed to put it.
It is not good enough to say that the present system is unsatisfactory, and to talk about PIIs and all the rest of it. Of course a defendant can always choose not to adduce a particular piece of evidence, and of course the state can always decide that it would be dangerous, and inimical to its own interests, to reveal how it operates. We all know that, and the state may indeed lose the case, but that is its decision. This is something quite different. We are taking a fundamental step, and it is a dangerous step. That is why I will not support the Government tonight.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will follow in the tradition of the progressives, and say that I opposed the Special Immigration Appeals Commission when it was introduced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) referred to Kafkaesque language and said that we should not exaggerate, but I opposed SIAC then because I thought that it was Kafkaesque. I think that the idea of being tried for something and not being entirely sure what it is, and of not hearing the evidence and not being able to respond to it, is typical of Kafka. I warned then that if we were not careful, there would be an incremental creeping extension of that into other areas of law. That is what we saw with control orders, and we are seeing it again tonight.
I fear that within five years we will be back here debating certain areas of the criminal law, unless we draw a line in the sand tonight and say that enough is enough. I think that we are undermining the basis of British law—as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said, the fundamental civil liberties that were fought for over generations. When the Supreme Court considered the matter, it made it clear that there should be compelling grounds if we are to take this step, but the only compelling ground we have been told about today is that the Government might have to shell out a few millions pounds in compensation every now and again. That is not compelling grounds for undermining our civil liberties in this way.
There seems to be a bizarre reversal of the history of why we are here. We are not here today to debate how we protect our security services; we are here because the security services were exposed as being associated with other regimes involved in rendition, torture and other human rights abuses. Rather than discussing how we protect our security forces, which of course is fundamental, we should also be debating how we hold them to account. That does not mean closing the doors of the courts; it means opening them to greater scrutiny and accountability. I am concerned that we seem to be heading for a complete reversal of the debate taking place outside across the country.
People have been shocked by the stories they have heard. A constituent of mine, a young man I have known since he was a child, went to Pakistan to work in a hospital voluntarily because he is a doctor. He was picked up by the Pakistani authorities and tortured for six weeks. He was then interrogated by British intelligence officers, after torture. That is unacceptable. He is now in such a state that he does not even want to pursue a claim. He is fearful—
John McDonnell
I understand why my right hon. Friend wants to intervene, and she has made good points, but I am really short of time and must conclude as best as I can, because the Minister still needs to respond.
On that basis, I thought that in reforming our legislation we would be considering measures that would make accountability more open and acceptable. That is why I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). In fact, a simpler amendment would just delete the whole part, not just each clause. That is supported not just by two minor parties, as the Minister suggested, but by a minor party, an individual and another party, and it might also have other support. If those amendments are not made, I support the fall-back protections that Opposition Front Benchers are trying to introduce, which is a commitment of last resort and a reference to open courts. Why can the judges not consider that as a factor as well, because it is one of the key factors they should look at?
I will refer briefly to new clauses 7 and 8, which stand in my name. They are based on the evidence that Dr Lawrence McNamara provided to the Committee when it considered this Bill. We discovered in this whole process that the media have played a fundamental role in exposing what has been happening in relation to the security services. We should recognise that role in statute. New clause 7 is therefore based on an amendment proposed in the Lords and recommended by Lawrence McNamara. It basically states that the media, as the eyes and ears of the general public, should be informed of these cases so that they can intervene if necessary and become involved in proceedings. They would be notified, but they would then also be able to seek a stay or sist of the civil proceedings and be party to at least some element of the debate on whether a closed procedure is necessary. When Ministers responded to that proposal elsewhere, they argued that it would not be suitable in civil damages cases. That was the only argument put up for not involving the media as a party in proceedings. In fact, these are not just normal civil proceedings; they are based on national interests and national security. That is why there needs to be some process to allow full engagement of the media and enable them to become involved and intervene in the proceedings.
New clause 8 also relates to Lawrence McNamara’s recommendations and a proposal considered in the Lords. Currently the Bill does not provide for the possibility of closed judgments being made open later. The reason they should be made open at a later stage, some would argue, is so that the courts and the process can be held to account publicly. The proceedings could be reported and then a view could be taken on whether it was correct that they went into secret court procedures. The argument is a recognition that there should be some procedure for opening closed judgments long after the secrecy is no longer necessary. The Government acknowledged on Report in the Lords that review of closed judgments is important, but they never came forward with the amendments necessary to enable that. That is why I tabled new clause 8.
The new clauses would make two minor amendments to the legislation to enable us to prise open the door of the secret proceedings a little bit more and involve the media, who have played such a fundamental role in exposing the operations of the security services that have led us to this debate.
Mr Tyrie
Well, I have one Front Bench aboard; that leaves another one. I do not see any movement just yet, but if I keep going for a couple more minutes, who knows? I might receive a response.
I think that it is in the interests of the Government to adopt this route, because it would bolster public confidence that the review and the reviewer were truly independent of the Government. My personal view is that five-yearly renewals, informed by a five-yearly review clause, should be satisfactory or at least adequate, but that is certainly the minimum that is required. What the Government have offered so far, which is just some reporting plus a five-yearly review, is clearly not enough. If they do not indicate that they are prepared to move this evening, I will vote against them. However, I hope very much that their lordships are also listening to the debate. They will have an opportunity to improve the new clause in a number of ways, and I hope that those will include the ways that I have suggested.
John McDonnell
I tabled new clause 9, which, as has been said, was debated in Committee. I congratulate Lawrence McNamara on his work—on the advice that he gave the House overall, and the evidence that he gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He made a simple point. As we have seen tonight, this is an extremely contentious Bill concerning a contentious procedure, and it therefore warrants close monitoring. The best way of enabling that to happen is to establish a database at the earliest opportunity in order to ensure that the necessary information is recorded.
Lawrence McNamara made a fairly straightforward recommendation to the Committee. He suggested a template-form statement specifying the duration of open hearings and closed hearings, the number of witnesses heard in closed proceedings and the nature of those witnesses, the length of a closed judgment, and whether national security was an issue in the proceedings. The information whose collection is requested is not exactly highly controversial. The reason for requiring it is that it would inform the proposed review, and inform the wider media and the general public about the activities that were being undertaken as a result of the Bill. I am perplexed about why the Government did not simply accept that recommendation. Surely they would want to collect the information as well, in order to monitor their own legislation.
I welcome new clause 5. At least the Government are doing something about reporting. However, the report that they propose would be undertaken after 12 months of operation. I think that people need an ongoing database to which they can refer regularly, and which can be used when necessary to inform debates in the House and among the general public. The database would also feed into the review itself. It would enable a proper discussion to be held about whether the legislation was being implemented effectively, and about the scale of its implementation.
One of the arguments that we have heard tonight is that the CMPs will be used in only a small number of cases—15, according to the impact assessment, but that figure appeared to have been plucked out of the air when the Minister without Portfolio was interrogated further. Given the uncertainty about the import and breadth of the use of the legislation, there is obviously a need for an ongoing database to monitor the position, and that is all that the amendment does. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are unwilling to accept it. I would expect a good Government to want to manage that information anyway.
With regard to the review, I wholeheartedly support the proposal for Joint Committee approval of the appointment. We had a similar discussion about the Bank of England, although without success, but the Treasury Committee was certainly successful with regard to the Office for Budget Responsibility. I suggest that this post is equally important and that, because the legislation is contentious, it is important that the person who reviews it has the full support of the House, and that could be secured by the Committee.
With regard to expiry and renewal, I remind Members that when the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was introduced, we secured an annual debate on renewal. I cannot remember it being argued at the time that that was because the legislation did not have sufficient scrutiny in its early days. I know that it was introduced as emergency legislation, but subsequently there was fairly intense debate about whether it needed to be amended at different stages. The annual renewal was intended to give us an opportunity to see whether it was working effectively and to estimate the consequences for human rights, a critical debate that a number of us have engaged in year in, year out. It did not mean that there were any major amendments as such; it meant that Members of this House, and through them the general public, could satisfy themselves as to whether the legislation was operating in accordance with the original intentions. That is what an expiry and renewal clause would enable us to do. Again, I cannot for the life of me see that as contentious; it is simply another democratic fall-back or long-stop mechanism to ensure that we are fully consulted and that we are satisfied that the legislation has been implemented effectively.
On that basis, I will support the amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers and will not press new clause 9 to a Division, but I must express my disappointment that the Government have not gone very far in accommodating what I think would simply be an exercise in openness and transparency for a particularly contentious piece of legislation.
Dr Huppert
I wish first to put on the record my thanks to the Minister. In Committee he resisted many of my amendments, which was frustrating, but he did agree to take away my new clauses 1 and 2, which related to reporting and reviewing, and reflect on them. He has been true to his word, and new clauses 5 and 6 are the result. There are a couple of slight differences in the time scales, but, as I indicated in Committee, my aim was to try to achieve regular reporting and review, rather than being fixated on the exact number of months, and clearly reports that happen so quickly that there is not enough time to get information are not necessarily better. I am happy to settle for the annual report and pleased to see it.
I am also happy to see the five-yearly review, but I have a slight issue with it and would be grateful for clarification from the Minister. During a brief exchange earlier in the debate, he talked about the five-yearly approach being appropriate, and I think he said “once a Parliament”. As I read it, the wording of the clause indicates that the review would be done after five years and never again, so there is a difference between the two proposals. I hope that he will reflect on which it is intended to be.
The review might find that everything is working fine, and even those of us who are deeply uncomfortable with the whole concept might find that it does not work in the way we had anticipated, in which case we might not need regular reviews, but there might be things we need to consider, in which case we would like to see five-yearly reviews. I think it is important that each Parliament can reflect and conclude, for example, that this has gradually grown, that there are more and more cases, or fewer and fewer cases, or that something else has changed. I hope that the Minister will look at that. I am pleased that there will be the five-yearly review.
I would certainly support the idea of the independent reviewer being appointed more independently, as I think would my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I do not know whether the Government will be able to find a way to deliver that, but I hope that they will, because I do not think that that would cause any significant harm. I have some slight reservations about the five-yearly period.
New clause 4 is similar to the annual renewal proposal that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) made in Committee and to the one proposed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who was apparently performing vaudeville at some stage in Committee—I am afraid I must have missed it. I am still keen to see some form of regular renewal. The Government are resistant to annual renewal. I will certainly be supporting such a renewal, but if it continues to be a stumbling block, will they consider five-yearly renewal? I had a similar discussion about that on the same terms with the Minister in respect of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. In that case, he and the Home Secretary decided on a five-yearly renewal and perhaps he will make the same incredibly wise decision in this case, as it was clearly a good one.
Succession to the Crown Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I do not say this with any personal interest, but where does someone who has been excommunicated stand in all this?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman, who I hope is not in that unhappy state, that an excommunicated Catholic would be excluded from succession to the Crown because that person would have been in communion with Rome at some point. It is an absolute. If at any moment in their whole life they were in communion with Rome, they are excluded from the throne, deemed to be dead. That cannot be the intention of the clause that allows a Catholic to marry an heir to the throne. That will simply create confusion and we will not know who the monarch is going to be.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I think the monarchy should be an hereditary monarchy and should go through the nearest line that is available. I do not think there should be a character test for the monarch. The great and weighty responsibilities of monarchs turn people into serious-minded individuals capable of that great honour who sometimes in their youth were not capable of it. One thinks immediately of Henry V and also of Edward VII, both men who, in their youth, were relatively irresponsible, but when that great honour of being King of England fell upon their shoulders, they rose to it magnificently—gloriously, regardless of their religion.
All I am trying to do is make sure that in future we know that the monarchy is safe and secure and to whom it has passed—that we do not open it up for the courts to say, “Well, this person once went to a Catholic church. This person had a Catholic baptism. Therefore let us go to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), who is 190th or some such in line to the throne, and who, having been perfectly Protestant all his life, might be very suitable.”
We need to be clear because so many functions of this nation would be thrown into doubt if there were no Crown. If we are risking people being ineligible for the Crown because of shoddy legislation, we then face the prospect of being unable to use the prerogative powers, which might make it quite difficult to open Parliament.
John McDonnell
I attached my name to these amendments because they reflect an amendment I tabled for last week’s debate that was not selected. I wish to explain why I did that, for the record and for some of my constituents and other supporters who might find it a bit bizarre.
Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), those who have participated in the debate so far have had an interest either as monarchists or, in the context of the amendment, as Catholics. I am not a monarchist—I am a republican; I see the monarchy as a complete anachronism—and I am, at best, a lapsed Catholic, as the parish priest optimistically describes me.
Over the past 10 or 15 years, I have sat in this Chamber on a number of occasions when successive Members have tried to remove anti-Catholic discrimination from our legislation. Dr Evan Harris and John Gummer did that when they were Members of this House. The simple reason, they argued—I fully agree—is that we in this House should not allow our institutions and our legislation to be founded on or framed by discrimination. This measure is the last remnant of anti-Catholic discrimination that sits within our laws. Frankly, it is offensive to discriminate on religious grounds, and every Government in recent years has said so. We have legislated time and again to remove such discrimination, so why can we not do it in this case?
The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) went through a trajectory of 300 years in the space of one speech; it has a been a major breakthrough to bring him into the 21st century. As he argued very eloquently, on whatever grounds this discrimination was introduced centuries ago, it is no longer relevant, and I am convinced that at some point it will be challengeable in other forums and courts. This is an ideal opportunity to say to the outside world that we will not tolerate discrimination of any sort. It is anti-Catholic discrimination that has historically been present in this kind of legislation, but such discrimination pertains to every other religion as well. We have heard potential successors to the Crown say that they are happy to be seen not as defenders of the faith but defenders of faith; if that is the case, so be it. We have an opportunity to send out a message that we are opposed to all discrimination, that we accept that the institutions we establish should not be founded on discriminatory legislation, and that we will remove this stain from the character of this House and our constitution.
John Gummer and Dr Evan Harris argued their cases extremely eloquently, more so than I can. When I left the Chamber after those debates, I thought, “If I were a member of a particular religion and that barred me from a particular office, I would find it offensive.” We might think that this debate is about something that is necessarily insubstantial in the everyday workings of our society and our lives, but it is not; it is about a symbol of past discrimination that must be removed. By removing that stain, we can go forward into a modern society
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
The amendment is framed in anti-disestablishmentarianistic language, in that it creates a rather exotic formula, but is not the inevitable consequence of debating this matter that it will lead us towards a debate on establishment and the role of the Church of England as the state Church, the role of the Supreme Head of the Church of England, and the title of Defender of the Faith, which was awarded to Henry VIII during the time of his communion with Rome?
John McDonnell
I agree that this will lead to that debate, but I am happy to take these reforms one step at a time. That is why the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset is extremely clever, because it would enable those who wish to maintain the established Church and not to move towards the disestablishment debate to pause at this stage.
I think it is inevitable that that debate will come back, but it is not for today. Today is about removing the way in which we discriminate against those who are not members of, or in communion with, the Church of England. This is a way of removing the ostracism of the past. It is time to send out a message that this is a modern, multicultural society, with people of all faiths and of no faith, and that no one should be discriminated against at any level of society, from the monarchy right through to every other institution. Let us seize this opportunity.
Michael Ellis
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about the obnoxious nature of any legislation, however ancient it may be, that is prejudicial to any religion. Those of my faith and many others are also excluded in the same way, because of that legislation. Why does he think that, whereas other examples of bias towards or prejudice against other religions have been done away with centuries ago, in many cases, or certainly many decades ago, this one remains? Does he think it might be due to the internecine complexity of the issue, rather than any prejudice?
John McDonnell
That may well have been the case in the past, but I think we have moved on. When the issue was debated in a different form—I think it was on a private Member’s Bill promoted by Evan Harris—Lord Falconer did the maths, calculated the large number of descendants that could have a claim to the throne and argued that we did not have parliamentary time and that the issue was irrelevant anyway. If we change the proposal on marriage, however, it may soon become very relevant, because we would not want to bar a future monarch from marrying a Catholic, a Jew or a Muslim. I think that that will come on to the agenda very quickly, whereas in the past parliamentary time was not found for it because it was not seen to be relevant.
Paul Flynn
Does my hon. Friend agree, having been present at previous debates, that the objection to breaking the taboo about the royal succession comes from those who say that once we get rid of this particular indefensible idiocy, the other foolishness involved in the royal succession will be exposed and people will come up with suggestions to reform the whole system so that we can have a monarchy or Head or State who are electable?
John McDonnell
I assure the House that supporting the amendment is not my cunning plan to get rid of the monarchy overnight. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there will be a debate as we move through this century about all our institutions, including the monarchy. That is why I was disappointed that his amendments were not selected, because I think we should have had a debate about alternative forms of Heads of State and the ways in which we can select them, rather than let the position be gained as a result of hereditary entitlement.
I will leave my argument there. I needed to put on the record why I put my name to the proposed new clause and why I tabled a similar amendment. It is about ending discrimination. On Saturday, I attended the annual dinner for pensioners organised by Botwell Catholic church St Vincent de Paul Society. When I told them about the two things that we were legislating on this week, the women cheered for ending gender discrimination, but everyone cheered for ending discrimination against Catholics. I say to hon. Members that this is not an historic thing—it is relevant. If someone in this country is born Catholic or into any other religion, or if they have no faith, and they are still discriminated against, that is unacceptable, as successive Governments and Members of this House have said. Now is the opportunity to legislate on it.
Mr Leigh
I start by echoing what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. He has put the case simply: in this day and age, when it comes to a person’s suitability to become the Head of State, they should not be discriminated against because of their religion. That is why I was happy to put my name to the new clause, moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and to his amendments.
I have been campaigning for years against barring Catholics from either marrying into the royal family or succeeding to the throne, particularly the first issue, which is bizarre. Indeed, I have introduced a ten-minute rule Bill and tabled early-day motions on the subject. We were constantly told that it was all too difficult and complicated to change, and that we would have to change hundreds of lines of legislation in hundreds of Acts of Parliament. But, hey presto! It is now being done. Although the Deputy Prime Minister gets a lot of stick in this House—including from Government Members —and in the media, I am on the record as warmly congratulating him on being the first leading member of this or any Government to get a grip on this issue and to try to solve it.
However, there is one final logical absurdity, which my hon. Friend is trying to address. I repeat this point because it is worth making: in this day and age, a person should not be barred from a position such as Head of State just because of their religion or lack of religion. There are many people in this House who have no religion and who do not wish to come to Prayers or who do so just to reserve their place. They are just as worth while as Members. There is no reason why we have to keep this bar in place.
I am a traditionalist, like my hon. Friend. Even if the new clause were accepted by the Government, it is extremely unlikely that it would be activated in our lifetimes, or indeed ever. As far as I know, there is no likelihood of Prince Charles or Prince William becoming a Catholic. It is therefore somewhat academic, but just because an amendment is academic does not mean that it is not worth debating and acting on if it is the logical and right thing to do. It is unlikely to be activated not just because of the nature of the likely successors to the throne, but because a person who is brought up as a member of the royal family is surely extremely unlikely to want to bar themselves from the throne or put their chances of succeeding to the throne at risk.
Mr Leigh
I, too, want to be absolutely clear about that. As I am speaking, people’s minds might be ticking over thinking, “Oh, here’s just another Catholic pushing his own religion.” This is not about my belief at all. I am very ecumenical. I am a member of Lincoln cathedral council. I think that the Anglican liturgy is wonderful in every single respect. My hon. Friend and I are traditionalists. In no way are we attacking the Anglican Church or, most importantly, the fact of this country having an established religion. That is important.
One of the single most dangerous aspects of modern life—the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will no longer follow my argument; indeed, he will strongly disagree with me—is the advance of secularism and the fact that religion is retreating from more and more aspects of national life. Even “The Sunday Half Hour” on Radio 2 on Sunday nights has been banished to 6.30 in the morning. Maintaining the established Church as a symbol—only a symbol—is terribly important, as is what my hon. Friend is doing today. He is trying to square the circle, to be absolutely fair and say that as a modern nation we should respect people’s conscience to maintain their own religion—or lack of it—and succeed to the headship of state. He is also trying to protect the established Church, and although other solutions might have been offered, including the one proposed earlier that the Archbishop of Canterbury could become the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the idea of a regency is good and squares the circle.
However, such a situation is extremely unlikely because, as I said, I am sure that anybody brought up in that environment would want to remain in the Anglican Church. I understand that James III of blessed memory, the Old Pretender, whose portrait, as you know Mr Deputy Speaker, hangs in Stonyhurst college in your constituency, was offered the throne on the condition that he renounced his faith. He refused to do that although he could have succeeded Queen Anne. In fact, I understand that about 50 people had a superior hereditary claim to George I, but they were all bypassed because, as my hon. Friend has made clear, there was in those days an absolute obsession about ensuring an Anglican Head of State.
We do not want to get too enmeshed in those arguments, but to be trapped at the beginning of the 21st century in arguments that raged at the beginning of the 18th century is frankly absurd. To remain trapped in the Act of Settlement, when there is absolutely no risk in a secular, modern, multicultural and multiracial nation of some sort of Catholic plot to take it over, is ridiculous.
John McDonnell
May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his earlier statement in which he was convinced that a person brought up in an Anglican environment will naturally become an Anglican? At some stage we will get to a situation where an Anglican Head of State says, “I don’t believe any more.” Are we asking them to abdicate?